In June 2014, the Obama administration revoked trademark protection for the Washington Redskins’ name because some people thought it was offensive.

This set a horrible precedent.

Just about every R-rated movie includes content that someone would consider offensive, whether that content be violence, sex, profanity, etc. The same can be said for the content of many books, the lyrics of many songs, the content of many paintings, etc. If any copyright, patent, trademark, etc., can be revoked because someone finds it offensive, then I can’t even begin to imagine how much damage this would cause to the concept of intellectual property, as well as to the arts, sciences, music, literature, movies, etc.

There is no such thing as a right to not be offended. The whole point of protecting free speech in the first place is to protect speech that some people might find offensive. If we only protected speech that was dull, bland, and non-controversial, there wouldn’t be much point to having such protection in the first place.

On top of that – and this will really, really tick off the social justice warriors – in May 2016, the Washington Post reported that the Washington Post’s own poll showed that 90% of Native Americans said they were not offended by the Washington Redskins’ name.

Let that sink in, social justice warriors.

Anyway, I think it would be awesome – from both a legal point of view, as well as being a matter of principle – if Trump were to reverse Obama’s actions on this matter, and return the trademark protection to the Washington Redskins. The legal point of view is that it is not the government’s job to determine what is and is not offensive. The matter of principle is that we must stand up to the social justice warriors’ irrational nonsense each and every chance that we get.

As a libertarian, I fully support a woman’s right to control her body, including, but not limited to, getting an abortion, smoking marijuana, and wearing her hair however she wants.

Unfortunately, the social justice warriors who claim to support a woman’s right to control her body are making an exception for white women who like to wear their hair in a black style.

Also, unfortunately, a white woman named Emily Bador has allowed herself to be brainwashed by the social justice warriors into believing that it is somehow wrong for her to wear her hair the way that she wants to wear it.

I don’t know who Emily Bador is. I’d never heard of her before I read this Washington Post article.

But I sincerely hope that she will choose to use her brain, and realize that she has the right to wear her hair however she wants to wear it, and also realize that there is no logical reason for her to feel guilty for wearing her hair the way that she wants to wear it.

Also – and I find this to be absolutely hilarious – a black magazine “accidentally” put Ms. Bador’s photograph on their magazine cover, because they did “not know” that she was white.

I would also like to point out that while the social justice warriors accused Ms. Bador of cultural appropriation for wearing a black hairstyle, they said absolutely nothing about the fact that she was wearing a nose ring, which, if the social justice warriors were consistent, is also something that, according to their own “logic,” is a form of cultural appropriation. In fact, many of these social justice warriors themselves wear nose rings, which means that they themselves are guilty of the very same kind of cultural appropriation that they accused Bador of committing.

Emily Bador is a white woman. She is not, therefore, a black woman. Normally, that wouldn’t be news worth reporting, mostly because it isn’t news.

But her race came into play recently due to the new cover of Blackhair magazine, a British glossy that bills itself as “an internatio nal bi-monthly magazine for the style conscious black woman. Packed with 100’s of hair inspiratio ns, fashion, lifestyle and celebrity interviews , we are one of the leading publicatio ns for women of colour in Europe.”

The magazine, which generally if not always features black or mixed-race models, used her photograph for the cover of its December/January issue. The editors have admitted they didn’t know she was white.

Prominently on the glossy cover was Bador.

This is the text of Bador’s apology, as reported in the Washington Post article:

I would deeply and sincerely like to apologise to every one for this, and black women especially. I would like to clarify, I believe this shoot is from when I was around 15 and didn’t understand cultural appropriation or the impact it has on POC. I was uneducated, which obviously is no excuse, ignorant and immature. Growing up in a very very white city, I had no idea the struggles black women face and how often they were persecuted for their hair. I didn’t understand how black women are constantly told their natural hair is inappropriate/unprofessional for the work place, or how young girls are told they can’t go to school with natural hair. I didn’t understand that shoots like this support the very Eurocentric beauty standard that the mainstream media focus on which reinforce the idea that black features are only ok on white women. I didn’t understand that as a white passing woman I’d be praised for this hair, but if I was a black woman I’d be persecuted. I didn’t understand cultural appropriation. I do regret doing this. I hold up my hands, I’m so so so sorry and I’m very sorry this cover was taken away from a black woman. This image is (I think, although I’m not 100% sure) about 3/4 years old, it was never intended to be on the cover of this magazine. If I had known it was going to be published, I would never have condoned it. I’m upset and angry I was never asked by the photographer/hair salon/anyone if this image could be used for the cover Black Hair. I’m so glad I’ve educated myself and surrounded my self with people to teach me what is right and wrong. I constantly am learning and becoming more and more informed. It’s important to come forward and be honest with ourselves about our past mistakes, otherwise we will never learn. Again, I’m truly, deeply sorry to anyone I’ve offended and I hope if nothing else this post can educated others so they don’t make similar mistakes. (also please let me know if I’ve said anything wrong or offensive in this post!!! or anything i can add!!!! i love u all sm and the last thing i want to do is offend or hurt any one, i really hope you don’t all think im a massive twat.

In June 2014, the Obama administration revoked trademark protection for the Washington Redskins’ name because some people thought it was offensive.

This sets a horrible precedent.

Just about every R-rated movie includes content that someone would consider offensive, whether that content be violence, sex, profanity, etc. The same can be said for the content of many books, the lyrics of many songs, the content of many paintings, etc. If any copyright, patent, trademark, etc., can be revoked because someone finds it offensive, then I can’t even begin to imagine how much damage this would cause to the concept of intellectual property, as well as to the arts, sciences, music, literature, movies, etc.

There is no such thing as a right to not be offended. The whole point of protecting free speech in the first place is to protect speech that some people might find offensive. If we only protected speech that was dull, bland, and non-controversial, there wouldn’t be much point to having such protection in the first place.

And now, two years later, we get a new reason for why Obama was not justified to do what he did: a poll by the Washington Post shows that 90% of Native Americans are not offended by the Washington Redskins name.

Salon: One of the current debates is over “cultural appropriation” – The idea that white people should not appropriate the culture of ethnic and racial minorities. I know that you don’t like the term “blue eyed soul.” Have you followed this conversation?

Daryl: Are you trying to say that I don’t own the style of music that I grew up with and sing? I grew up with this music. It is not about being black or white. That is the most naïve attitude I’ve ever heard in my life. That is so far in the past, I hope, for everyone’s sake. It isn’t even an issue to discuss. The music that you listened to when you grew up is your music. It has nothing to do with “cultural appropriation.”

Salon: I agree with you entirely, because…

Daryl: I’m glad that you do, because anyone who says that should shut the fuck up.

Salon: Well, this entire critique is coming back…

Daryl: I’m sorry to hear it. Who is making these critiques? Who do they write for? What are their credentials to give an opinion like that? Who are they?

Salon: Much of it is academic.

Daryl: Well, then they should go back to school. Academia? Now, there’s a hotbed of idiocy.

Salon: Anyone who knows about music, about culture in general, understands that everything is much more natural. Everything is a mixture.

Daryl: We live in America. That’s our entire culture. Our culture is a blend. It isn’t split up into groups. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool – worse than a fool – a dangerous fool.

Salon: I also know that you don’t like the term “blue eyed soul”…

Daryl: No, and it is for this very reason. There is no color to soul. Soul music comes from the heart. It was generated out of the church, and it became secular gospel.

Salon: Ray Charles made that same point. He said the only difference between gospel and soul is that in one genre he sings to God, and in another, he sings to a woman.

Social justice warriors at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are demanding that two students of Arabic heritage be expelled from the college because they wore Arabic clothing!

Let me repeat: the “offending” students – the students who were accused of “cultural appropriation” – are of Arabic heritage and were wearing Arabic clothing.

Those two students are in the bottom right of the picture, shown below.

The social justice warriors also want everyone else in the picture expelled too.

After being told that the two students wearing Arabic clothing were themselves of Arabic descent, one of the social justice warriors who had demanded their explusion said:

“Although that story might justify on an individual level, it does not justify on a systemic level because when people see it, they don’t know that story. When they see it, they see it as a justification for wearing cultural costumes.”

Four different social justice oragnizations at the college – “Students for Justice in Palestine,” “Black Students for Revolution,” “Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan,” and “Campus Union for Trans Equality and Support” – all joined together to form a brand new social justice organization called “Not Just a Party at UIUC” (NJAP).

Apparently, it never occurred to them that the acronym “NJAP” contains a racial slur.

That they would form a brand new organization in response to some students having a party that consisted of consenting adults is absurd.

That they would demand that everyone who attended the party be expelled is also absurd.

That they would consider it “cultural appropriation” when students wear clothing from their own culture, well, that’s absurd too.

A black female employee grabs a white male student, tries to stop him from walking, and criticizes him for wearing dreadlocks. Then she falsely accuses him of grabbing her (even though it was the other way around), and asks why everything is being filmed.